There’s a powerful, well-funded political machine operating in Connecticut — and it’s not coming from the state Capitol. It’s a private, tax-exempt nonprofit with deep ties to progressive academia, national advocacy movements, and left-leaning foundations. It’s called The Connecticut Project (TCP). With deep financial reserves and influence, this group is spending millions to reshape the state’s policies, politics, and future in its own image. 

Through its 501(c)(3) nonprofit and 501(c)(4) political lobbying arm — The Connecticut Project Action Fund — TCP is funneling millions into advocacy groups to advance a broad progressive agenda.  

The organization describes itself as a “social change organization” focused on overhauling the state’s economy, housing system, and public services.  

Their goals may be well-intended, but they come with a high price tag — including expanded government-subsidized housing, universal pre-K, broader “financial safety net programs,” job subsidies, and so-called “wealth-building supports” 

TCP wants the state’s spending priorities and policymaking to be steered by and for low-income and “asset-limited” households. That includes pushing for expanded access to healthcare, criminal justice reform, and “specific needs of immigrants.” 

The group’s 2024 report lays out their plan.   

They’re not just pushing policy — they’re running a statewide marketing campaign. TCP has poured money into billboards, glossy mailers, bus ads, and even grocery cart ads to push their message. They’re also hiring part-time foot soldiers at $25 an hour to knock on doors and rally support. 

According to their most recent tax filings, TCP spent just over $9 million in Connecticut in 2023 while amassing a $22.7 million war chest. Nearly $6 million in grants went to groups like Husky 4 Immigrants, the Connecticut Tenants Union, and the Partnership for Strong Communities — all pushing policies like rent control, higher taxes, expanded public services, immigration reform, and efforts to dismantle state’s fiscal guardrails. 

How they’re funded remains unclear. Donor privacy laws shield contributors on both sides of the aisle. But TCP isn’t just bankrolling activism — it’s shaping the policy agenda. Last year, the group partnered with Yale’s Tobin Center to release a study outlining how the state’s fiscal guardrails should be rewritten. 

The report argues that the current guardrails — especially the volatility and spending cap — are too rigid and have put “billions of dollars of revenue out of reach.”  

In a CT Mirror op-ed announcing the release of the paper, they warn that without changes, Connecticut is heading toward a “self-imposed budget cliff,” and that lawmakers will be forced to make “deep cuts to current services” despite projected surpluses.  

Their solution is “redesigning the volatility cap” with a “dynamic” model based on a rolling average of past years, and adjusting the spending cap so it “keeps pace with Connecticut’s economic conditions.” 

The volatility cap, enacted in 2017, was designed to prevent the state from using unpredictable sources of revenues — like capital gains taxes — to fund permanent programs. Instead, surplus revenue is directed toward the rainy-day fund and/or to pay down pension debt.  

TCP’s goal isn’t just budget flexibility — it’s to make room for increased state spending on their priority projects.  

The report was just the beginning. TCP is actively calling on lawmakers to weaken the guardrails.  

In an April 2025 press release, the group responded to proposed federal cuts by urging lawmakers to suspend the rules entirely. “Working class and middle-class people are in a cost-of-living crisis,” said TCP’s Vice President of Advocacy Melvin Medina.  

“If Connecticut doesn’t step up to responsibly adjust the fiscal rules, working people are going to literally pay the price,” Medina added. TCP also called for a budget that’s more “responsive,” urging lawmakers to use an emergency declaration to bypass the caps and unlock more spending on social programs. 

Not Everyone is Convinced This is a Responsible Move 

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) warns that the Tobin Center’s proposed “dynamic cap” could backfire — freeing up revenue in good years but setting the state up for shortfalls when markets take a downturn.  

“These revenues remain volatile and can fluctuate up to 20% in any given year,” CBIA notes, pointing out that capital gains and pass-through entity taxes can drop sharply with little warning.  

The Tobin Center assumes recent boom years are the “new normal,” but CBIA calls that a dangerous form of “recency bias where unusually strong recent performance (like the market gains of 2019-2024) may lead to overly optimistic projections.”  

CBIA states that changing the cap now would come “at the expense of savings,” and highlights that “as a result of the contributions to the pensions system, Connecticut will save $737 million per year for the next 20 years.” 

Public Opinion Echoes the Data 

Connecticut voters overwhelmingly support the fiscal guardrails. A March 2025 poll conducted by Global Strategy Group (GSG) found that “voters are highly supportive of the fiscal guardrails,” and that support goes across party lines.  

According to GSG’s findings “more than two-thirds of voters (69%) support the guardrails, including 65% of Democrats, 73% of Independents, and 73% of Republicans.”  

Voters aren’t asking lawmakers to break the rules. They’re asking them to live within them.  

The survey also found that once voters were told the state had “$900 million in additional spending room below the spending cap,” roughly three-in-four (76%) said that amount should be “enough money for the state to use without changing the guardrails.”  

Even when opponents make their case, voters still want fiscal responsibility.  

“Though hearing a statement from opponents of the guardrails does lower support somewhat, pro-guardrail messaging is highly effective and raises support back to baseline levels, above 80% support,” the study reported.  

The study also notes that “the best reason to support the guardrails is the personal impact they have on Connecticut voters and the state’s fiscal future.” That includes helping the state “pay off interest on debt” and keeping the budget balanced — priorities shared by all three parties. 

This puts TCP and its Yale allies on the wrong side of public opinion. 

While TCP and the Tobin Center insist the guardrails are holding the state back, voters see them as a safeguard against exactly the kind of reckless spending Connecticut used to be known for. The idea that working families want lawmakers to dismantle the very rules that rebuilt the state’s finances just doesn’t hold up.  

If anything, the public is asking lawmakers to do their jobs — not rewrite the rules every time someone wants to launch a new program. 

The guardrails were put in place for a reason. They’ve stopped lawmakers from blowing through our tax dollars, helped pay down billions in pension debt, and brought some stability to a state where running in the red was the norm.  

Adjusting the guardrails now to make room for more programs and bigger government isn’t responsible — it’s exactly what got Connecticut into trouble in the first place. Lawmakers shouldn’t fall for it. They need to stick with what works and not cave every time a well-financed special interest group wants more spending.